Data on the Section 1328(f) enforcement gap, Rules Suggestion 26-BK-3, and screening tools for the federal judiciary.
Section 1328(f) of the Bankruptcy Code bars Chapter 13 discharge for repeat filers who received a prior discharge within 2 or 4 years of the new filing. The test is a bright-line rule requiring only three data points: the prior discharge date, the new filing date, and the chapter of the prior case.
Despite the simplicity of this determination, there is no procedural mechanism in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that requires verification of discharge eligibility before a discharge order is entered. The current process depends on debtor self-reporting through Question 9 of the bankruptcy petition and on party objections under Rule 4004.
Analysis of 4.9 million bankruptcy cases from the FJC Integrated Database identified 391,951 Chapter 13 cases filed by debtors with prior filings where discharge eligibility was never verified at the docket level. The scope spans all 94 federal bankruptcy districts from the BAPCPA effective date (October 17, 2005) through the most recent available data.
Rules Suggestion 26-BK-3 proposes an amendment to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004 that would require verification of discharge eligibility under Sections 1328(f) and 727(a)(8)/(9) before a discharge order is entered.
The proposal is supported by empirical data demonstrating that the current system fails to catch a substantial number of cases where the statutory bar applies. The submission includes:
The submission was accompanied by a cover letter to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, a national screening dashboard, and a link to the open-source tools on GitHub. Research reports and methodology documentation are available at 1328f.org.
In re Filice (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012) addressed the court's role in verifying discharge eligibility. The court held that Section 1328(f) operates as a statutory bar -- not an affirmative defense -- and that the court has an independent duty to verify eligibility before entering a discharge order, even when no party raises the issue.
This holding supports the position that verification should be a procedural requirement built into Rule 4004, rather than left to the initiative of parties who may not check, may not know to check, or may have interests adverse to the debtor's awareness of the bar.
Additional case law addressing 1328(f) interpretation, timing calculations, and the waiver question is collected on the case law page.
Interactive map with district-level dismissal, discharge, and prior filer rates for all 94 districts.
Court decisions interpreting 1328(f), including Filice, Blendheim, and Cisneros.
Compare dismissal and discharge rates across districts.
Section 1328(f) framework, timing rules, and Question 9 analysis.
National map showing screened districts and state-level data.
Screening scripts, methodology, and data documentation on GitHub.
This site is free and open-source. Donations support the Open Bankruptcy Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, funding PACER access fees and bankruptcy court transparency research.
Stay updated on new datasets and research findings
No spam. No marketing. Just data.
PACER cases made free through RECAP: 150+ of 37.9 million
Every document we access becomes permanently free for the next researcher, attorney, or debtor.
$0 of $5,000 Q1 PACER research goal
1,500+ hours. No grants, no institutional backing. 0 supporters so far.
Sponsor this research